So you are saying that the photos of the kids in a public space were a violation of their right to privacy? Or were they not in a public space?

I and the court are saying that publication of the photographs was a violation of their privacy. As the court said, there is a world of difference between being seen, or photographed, walking down the street and having photographs of you walking down the street published. There is simply no reason whatever to assume that taking photographs and publishing them are the same from a privacy point of view.

Interesting distinction. So, unless a scene is "news worthy", one cannot publish photos of people without their consent? Is that because money is made, if even indirectly, off of the photo?

That is the way the law is developing. But I don't think it has anything to do with money.

It is not much - if at all - different from the NSA surveillance. Pretty much everyone rejects the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument in that case, and it is the same with photography in public: I and a lot of people feel that a man has a right sit on a cafe terrace and have a quiet drink with his mistress without worrying that photographs of them might get published.

Personally, I think the decisive change is digital imagery and the internet. As the judge in this case said, if you walk down the street you have no right to expect not to be seen or photographed. And 40 years ago, being seen and being photographed was pretty much the same thing, because the technology to disseminate an image, search for an image, re-use it, and track down the subject, just did not exist as it does today.

Sure, if you use a defamatory caption, or if the Nazi party (say) uses my image in its advertising I can sue, but why should I be the one who has to pay the costs of doing that? It just cannot be right that you put my image on the internet and say "use this however you like".

I'm a bit confused, now (well, I'm always a bit confused, but...). On the one hand, it appears you are saying that the publishing of the photo is a violation of privacy (e.g. having a pic of you and your mistress displayed for the world to see in a newspaper), regardless of whether or not the person is in a public space. On the other hand, it appears you are saying that it is not the photo itself, or even the publication of the photo, that is the issue, but rather how the photo will be used. To me, these are two very different issues.

Are you saying that the issue is that there are so many more places that the photo could be published in this internet era than there were in pre-internet times, and that is what the issue is? But this doesn't make sense, either, as the particular photo being discussed was published only in the newspaper, not online all over the place.

Or is it that the newspaper's voluntary guidelines as mike703's post above lists, are not voluntary, after all, but compulsory?

I, personally, regard the rights and wrongs as a simple issue of privacy.

Judges, on the other hand, because of the internet are willing to draw a clearer distinction between being seen (including being photographed) in public and having a photograph published.

Hmm. So kind of like the famous quip attributed to Churchill?

Churchill:Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?

Socialite:My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...

Churchill:Would you sleep with me for five pounds?

Socialite:Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!

Churchill:Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Actually, it wasn't Churchill (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/). But, yes, you are right, if the point is that privacy, like chastity, is not black and white, all or none. It is flat wrong to say you are either in your own home and you have perfect privacy or you are in public and you have none whatever.